17 th April 2012 About the Hallam Centre for Community Justice - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Carrot and stick – the ‘criminalisation’

• f drug and alcohol treatment for
• ffenders?

17th April 2012

About the Hallam Centre for Community Justice

• Integrated Offender Management
• Intensive alternatives to custody
• Criminal justice voluntary sector engagement
• Restorative justice
• Outcome based commissioning and payments by results

Evaluation, research, consultancy, professional development for the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, Police, Probation and local authorities

An opportunity for reflection

The ‘criminalisation’ of drug and alcohol treatment?

Policy direction for the past decade for drug and alcohol using offenders

• Address the needs of problematic drug users (PDUs)

during their engagement with NOMS – Provide end-to-end treatment for PDUs before, during and after sentence, co-ordinated with the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) – Reduce drug misusing offenders’ re-offending – Reduce illicit use of drugs by offenders – Reduce the physical harm caused to drug misusing

• ffenders and others

–• Build on the national Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy to improve treatment and support for offenders with alcohol misuse problems

Rationing of interventions based risk on re-

• ffending rather than medical need?

Intensive alternatives to custody

• Aiming to divert offenders at risk of a short

term custodial sentence (less than 12 months)

• A community order which typically includes:
• Intensive supervision by probation – twice

weekly

• Punishment – electronic curfew and/or intensive

unpaid work

• Drug and alcohol treatment
• Mentoring
• Court reviews
• Accredited programmes where required

Needs of IAC and non IAC disposals

Pathways needs Proportions with identified needs IAC disposed Non-IAC disposed

Accommodation 38.5% 38.0% Employment, training and education 75.1% 66.5% Relationships 62.6% 60.6% Lifestyle & associates 76.8% 66.0% Drugs misuse 46.2% 43.0% Alcohol misuse 50.6% 47.0% Thinking & behaviour 69.0% 62.0% Average no. needs identified (out of 7) 4.2 3.8 Number of Cases 755 416

Previous disposals received by IAC disposed and non IAC disposed

Offence type (Primary Offences Only) Total IAC Non-IAC

Discharge 61.3% 62.7% Fine 69.4% 71.4% Community Penalty 95.4% 87.0% Custody 71.8% 74.0% Other 84.5% 88.9% Number of Cases 755 416

Appropriateness of drug and alcohol treatment as order requirements that if breached could result in custody?

Order, licence and requirements - non completions in England and Wales

• 25% (50,677) of orders and licences were not

completed in 2009/10

• 44% (7048) of DRRs were not completed in 2009/10
• 28% (2096) of ATRs were not completed in 2009/10

(NOMS Annual Report March 2011)

Outcomes of revoked orders – IAC

Number Revoked for Breach

Community

sentence Custodial Sentence New intensive

• rder

A 30 6.9% 69.0% 24.1% B 51 20.0% 70.0% 10.0% C 16 7.7% 69.2% 23.1% D 46 13.0% 80.4% 6.5% E 50 24.5% 73.5% 2.0% Total 193 16.6% 73.3% 10.2%

Promise of co-ordinated/fast track access to drug and alcohol treatment for non statutory offenders through voluntary compacts?

What is Integrated Offender Management (IOM) ?

• Case management of offenders
• Co-ordinated provision of services to address welfare and

criminogenic needs including drugs and alcohol provision

• Cordinated enforcement by police and probation
• Sharing of information and intelligence to inform case

management

• ‘To include non-statutory offenders and ‘ex PPOs’

A development/refinement of multi-agency case management arrangements originated through priority and prolific offenders schemes, drug rehabilitation requirements etc

Non statutory offenders on IOM

Total Number of Offenders Percentage not in Statutory Supervision Percentage not in PPO Scheme Avon & Somerset 438 32.6 68.0 Lancashire 421 65.8 78.4 Nottinghamshire 591 27.1 30.5 West Midlands 215 50.2 58.6 West Yorkshire 670 25.8 52.2 Total 2335 36.9 54.9

Non statutory offenders on IOM

• High proportion are drug using offenders and/or with alcohol

problems

• Offender compacts – voluntary agreements
• Police as offender managers
• Conversion of non statutory offenders to statutory offenders
• Net widening and proportionate engagement

You’ve got to balance it against their human rights as well because if we say ‘ok this person is a non statutory prolific offender and we’re going to visit them every day for the next three months’ if there’s absolutely no intelligence or no indication that they’re committing crime you can’t really say that that is proportionate (Police)

• Finite level of provision - rationing is inevitable
• Should offenders and in particular persistent offenders be

prioritised over others?

Rationing of interventions based risk on re-offending rather than medical need? Appropriateness of drug and alcohol treatment as order requirements that if breached could result in custody ?

• Is it an issue?
• What's the balance between the needs of society and the

rights of the individual?

Promise of co-ordinated/fast track access to drug and alcohol treatment for non statutory offenders through voluntary compacts?

• What rights does a non statutory offender have?

Drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR)

• Intensive vehicle for tackling serious drug misuse and
• ffending
• Involve drug treatment, regular testing and court reviews of

progress

• Subject to rigorous enforcement
• Last between 6 months and three years

DRR completion rates in the community 2009/10 Target: 45 per cent of DRRs to be successfully completed Results: Total terminations: 16,062 Successful completions: 9014 (56%) Unsuccessful completions: 7048 (44%)

(NOMS Annual Report March 2011)

Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR)

• One of 12 requirements that can be applied to a community
• rder or suspended sentence order
• A tailored treatment programme targeted at offenders with

serious alcohol misuse and offending

• Can last between 6 months and 3 years as part of a

community order or 6 months and two years as part of a suspended sentence order

ATR completion rates in the community 2009/10

Results: All terminations: 7607 Successful completions: 5511 (72%) Unsuccessful terminations: 2096 (28%)

(NOMS Annual Report March 2011)

Target: 47 per cent of ATRs to be successfully completed

What does national research and data tell us?

• 7 out of 10 of arrestees test positive for drugs, of which 4 out
• f 10 test positive for opiates or cocaine*
• In a study of 1075 admissions to treatment services, 61% new

admissions reported they had committed a total of 70,728 crimes**

• At any one time one third of problematic drug users are in the

care of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) which represents half their total caseload

*Bennett T & Hollary K (2004) Drug use and offending: survey results of the first two years of the NEW-ADAM programme, Research Findings 179; Home Office **Gossop M, Marsden J and Stewart D; NTORS; Department of Health; 1998

IAC disposed - Offending history

Site Average prior number of

• ffences

Average prior number of sentencing

• ccasions

A 34.7 19.4 B 33.8 14.9 C 20.6 10.4 D 28.1 12.9 E 28.3 14.0 Average across the sites 29.1 14.3

Non compliance with DRR or ATR

One warning in a 12 month period Taken back to court:

• More requirements
• Different requirements
• Making the requirement harder
• Sent to prison

Need IOM enhanced In scope for IOM Not enhanced Out of Scope Total number of

• ffenders

presenting this need and the percentage of

• ffenders as a

total of the OASys records Accommodation 53.2 38.8 25.0 718 29.0% Employment Training and Education 64.4 52.4 31.4 898 36.2% Finance 0.3 1.0 0.6 14 0.6% Relationships 68.8 60.2 43.4 1168 47.1% Lifestyle 68.8 54.4 62.0 924 37.3 Drug Misuse 59.0 51.5 17.2 584 23.6% Alcohol 37.3 24.3 21.7 587 23.7% Emotional Well- being 0.3 2.9 1.9 44 1.8% Thinking and Behaviour 63.7 39.8 37.2 1003 40.5 Attitudes 62.7 37.9 29.5 837 33.8 Average Number

• f Needs

3.91 3.31 1.72 2.01

Rationale for IOM – Multiple needs

Rationale for IOM – offending history

Averages Number of PNC Offences / Occasions Number of Previous Primary Offences Number

• f

Breaches

• f orders

Age at First Conviction Age Now (10.1.2010) West Yorkshire (n=1152) 45.9 19.9 5.0 15.47 25.23 Nottinghamshire (n=349) 52.8 21.7 7.4 16.70 28.54 Lancashire (n=1072) 51.7 17.4 4.0 17.03 27.66 Bristol (n=420) 70.2 22.4 3.6 17.98 29.76 West Midlands (n=205) 53.2 21.0 3.8 16.17 26.29

Is IAC cost effective?

Short term sentence

• Cost of prison
• Cost of probation
• Cost of future offences

IAC

• Cost of an IAC order

(based on the pilots)

• Expected cost to society
• f an offender

committing offences while on IAC (estimated

from the pilots)

Costs of a custodial sentence

Cost of custody Cost of probation Cost of future career

Representation of future offending career

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Convicted of re-offence: Cost of offence + cost of detection + cost of trial + cost of sentence + cost of probation + cost of future career

Relationship Between Future Career Costs and the Probability

• f a Re-Offence in the First Year After Release From Custody

IAC costs and assumptions

• Average project costs of an IAC sentence per
• ffender per year is £5,251
• Costs of short term custody are £48,083
• The probability of revokation and re-

sentencing on IAC is 38.7%

• 59.9% of offenders released from short term

custody re-offend in the first year (NB if someone is in prison, they are not offending)

Findings from Break Even Analysis

• In order to break even compared to a period
• f 45 days incarceration (average length of

sentence served for short term custody), a typical IAC programme must reduce the re-

• ffending by a modest level relative to the

59·9% baseline

What is payment by results (PbR)

• Payment by results “will link payment to the outcomes

achieved, rather than the inputs, outputs or processes

• f a service” Cabinet Office (2011: 9)
• Payment by results allows the

government/commissioner to pay a provider of services on the basis of the outcomes their service achieves rather than the inputs or outputs the provider delivers.

Benefit for commissioner - Transfer

• f risk and deferred payment
• PbR transfers risk away from the branch of

government/commissioner commissioning the service and towards the service provider.

• Payment is also deferred (NB not in all cases)
• Given the need to reduce public sector

spending the transference of risk and deferment of payment is an attractive proposition for government/commissioner

Proposed benefits of PbR for service provider

• Service providers are free of bureaucracy,

micro-management

• Encourages innovation
• Encourages new market entrants (VCS and

private sector…)

Gaming the target

• Perverse incentives are a risk of all performance management

systems.

– “. . . merely shifting the level of abstraction of what is being measured upwards from activities to “outcomes”, doesn’t alter the systemic structure and the same unfortunate consequences are likely to ensue.” (Hoverstadt 2011: 1) – Evaluation focus on identifying perverse outcomes – in the Local JR pilot, police arrest fewer people, more custodial sentences of over 12 months, TV licences

• Key risk: cherry-picking and withdrawing service provision

(binary measure)